UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 17-C-1740

JOAN R. PANSIER,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Joan Pansier’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to alter or amend a judgment “only if the petitioner can demonstrate a manifest error of law or present newly discovered evidence.” Obriecht v. Raemisch,

(7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). A manifest error is “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,

(7th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). The movant must “clearly establish” that she is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). Harrington v. City of Chicago,

(7th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Pansier asserts that the Court’s decision granting the United States’ motion for default judgment against her and subsequently entering judgment against her in the amount of $127,782.18 in favor of the United States of America was premised on manifest errors of law. After a review of Pansier’s motion, the Court concludes that there is no basis to alter the July 20, 2021 judgment. Pansier merely asserts arguments previously presented to the Court. She does not offer any other factual or legal argument that convinces the Court that its decision was in error. Accordingly, Pansier’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (Dkt. No. 84) is DENIED. SO ORDERED at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 19th day of August, 2021. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach United States District Judge